V SURESH Vs. TECHNO TRADING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C.No.646/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva. THE 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner along with three others alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THE 1st accused was a partnership firm of which accused Nos.2 to 4 were the partners. THE prosecution is based upon Ext.P1 cheque executed by 3rd and 4th accused on behalf of the firm. THE revision petitioner took up a plea that he had not signed Ext.P1. During the trial, on the side of the 1st respondent PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. On the defence side, one witness was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 was marked. THE case against the 1st accused was split up. After the trial, the revision petitioner was found guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. Though he preferred Crl.A.No.130/2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition was filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.N.Rajani appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the records. Going by the evidence on record, I find that the 1st respondent through the evidence of PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P12 had succeeded to establish that on behalf of the partnership firm, the revision petitioner along with one of the partners executed Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of a liability amounting to Rs.56,557.82/- and that when Ext.P1 was presented for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. A notice demanding discharge of liability was caused to the revision petitioner. It was returned unclaimed. There was no discharge of the liability. The defence plea that Ext.P1 was not signed by the revision petitioner was correctly disbelieved by the courts below. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of facts by the courts below. There is no error, illegality or impropriety to be rectified in exercise of the revisional powers. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference.